Dictators, Tyrants, Rulers, Sovereigns and Princes. These are the people who Niccolo Machiavelli has written his book, The Prince, to instruct. Leaders need instructions to maintain their position, their people, their military and their power. The Prince, a book that recommends tyranny and vicious ideas, is the manual. It has helped to shape the ideas of the past, continues to have influence in the present, and will most definitely shape the future of politics. His title goes against many of the ideas of the ideas of the time from when it was written, with his definition of virtue very much contrary to the traditionally defined philosophy of society of old. But this audience to whom he writes to are not traditional nor are they concerned with …show more content…
Machiavelli makes it clear throughout his novel that the Prince or ruler of any group of people cannot solely be good nor bad in order to maintain his rule. In times of need a leader should use these attributes for the betterment of his visage by the people. In the fifteenth chapter of his book Machiavelli mentions the fine line a ruler must maintain
“For it is so far from how one lives to how one should live, that he who lets go of what is done for what should be done learns his ruin rather than his preservation. For a man who wants to make a profession of good in all regards must come to ruin among so many who are not good. Hence it is necessary to a prince, if he wants to maintain himself, to learn to be able not to be good, and to use this and not use it to necessity.” (61, Machiavelli)
Machiavelli is explaining in the text to his audience of rulers and tyrants, that the use of viciousness and force, is acceptable in best dealing with some situations in order to maintain power. This usage of virtue is much different from the traditional ideas of moral and unmoral viewed by the politicians and philosophers of the past. Machiavelli believes that what makes a leader is not whether a leader is good or bad, but whether they accomplish what was set out to be
…show more content…
From Machiavelli’s point of view, he sees that in order to be a better leader, sometimes a leader needs to break his word. To do the best thing for a ruler's well-being and safety occasionally it is necessary to do what is considered unvirtuous in the eyes of the people. Whether that be to publicly execute an enemy, or to raise taxes when having previously promised not to. “A prudent lord, therefore, cannot observe faith, nor should he, when such observance turns against him, and the causes that made him promise have been eliminated.” (Machiavelli, 69) A prince must be able to do what is unpopular, vicious or even sometimes evil to maintain their, position. Not all actions made by the boss of any group will be popular, but if that action needs to be made, a leader must be able to do it. Machiavelli believes that any king or prince unwilling to break promises and go against their own word is not a prudent and knowledgeable
In The Prince, Machiavelli discusses ways in which a ruler should obtain power and maintain power, emphasizing the concept of gaining power through virtue versus fortune. Virtue, or virtu in the original Italian, is defined as the masculine quality of power, and not necessarily tied to ideas of morality as it is in the English definition.
Machiavelli recommends the rulers to follow the good qualities, unless needs to protect himself from a vice who would not lose the state for him or be prudent enough to escape a vice who would lose the state for him.
Papakonstantinou Kosta Jennifer Covent ENG2D1-24 14 May 2024 Who is Responsible for the Tragedy? The Witches, Lady Macbeth, and Macbeth can be seen as responsible for the tragedy of Macbeth because they worked together to plot and go through with a plan to kill King Duncan, the king of Scotland, in turn causing a series of tragic events. Firstly, The Witches are responsible for giving Macbeth the idea that he is invincible, further enticing him to seek power in twisted ways. In (IV.I.74-84) the witches tell Macbeth “None of the woman born shall harm Macbeth!”. Hearing this, Macbeth’s ambition takes over and he starts to go mad over the idea of power and becoming king.
In The Prince, Machiavelli explains what a good and successful prince should be like. He advocates a strong, cutthroat authority figure and encourages the winning of power by any means necessary. The main theme in The Prince is that mob rule is dangerous, for people know only what is good for themselves and not what is good for the whole. The common people, in Machiavelli’s view, “are ungrateful, fickle, liars, and deceivers, they shun danger and are greedy for profit; while you treat them well, they are yours”. He believes that these commoners should be
The Prince is essentially a guide book on how to acquire and maintain political power. We can think of it as a collection of rules and methods to achieve a level of superior authority. Its main focus is that the ends—no matter how immoral—justify the means for preserving political authority. While some may agree with this mindset of thinking many today dismiss Machiavelli as a cynic. The book shows rulers how it is that they should act to survive in the real world to maintain authority. While Niccolo Machiavelli’s ideas can be radical, they helped to spark a revolution in political philosophy. Although his ideas might have not been completely original, they were very different and unheard of at the time, The Prince, was published. Machiavelli uses many methods to convey his messages including biblical comparisons and of course metaphors. This character can be viewed in several manners. He is almighty and powerful, stopping at nothing to achieve his goals or have his ways. While this quality does qualify him to be a might leader it also raises the question of immorality. How far will one go to maintain order? Would you stop at nothing to achieve this task? Machiavelli shows this by saying, “it is
This passage comes from Chapter 18 of Machiavelli’s The Prince. The thesis of the chapter is that a ruler should not always be honest and trustworthy; rather, he should break the rules when it is to his advantage. In this quote, Machiavelli states that it is necessary to do wrong in order to hold onto power. At the same time, he makes clear that a ruler’s subjects must think that the ruler has positive qualities. Machiavelli views both these characteristics—apparent goodness and actual lack of it—as essential to a ruler’s success. In doing so, he implicitly makes the statement that there is no contradiction between the two. It is possible to do wrong and still be seen as good, Machiavelli implies, not because people judge a ruler’s hypocrisy as benign or beneficent; instead, it is possible because the people can simply be kept in the dark about the true nature of the ruler.
Machiavelli considers society an immoral place. According to Machiavelli as stated in The Discourses on Livy, “for as men are, by nature, more prone to evil than to good”. The Prince is a manual for being a successful ruler in an immoral society. Often times that success is met by committing immoral acts. Machiavelli, an outsider to the inner workings of government gives what he thinks are the critical tools to being a successful ruler in modern society. “Sometimes you have to play hardball” is a saying from today that I relate to his philosophies.
"Machiavelli identifies the interests of the prince with the interests of the state." He felt that it was human nature to be selfish, opportunistic, cynical, dishonest, and gullible, which in essence, can be true. The state of nature was one of conflict; but conflict, Machiavelli reasoned, could be beneficial under the organization of a ruler. Machiavelli did not see all men as equal. He felt that some men were better suited to rule than others. I believe that this is true in almost any government. However, man in general, was corrupt -- always in search of more power. He felt that because of this corruptness, an absolute monarch was necessary to insure stability. Machiavelli outlined what characteristics this absolute ruler should have in The Prince. One example of this can be seen in his writings concerning morality. He saw the Judeo-Christian values as faulty in the state's success. "Such visionary expectations, he held, bring the state to ruin, for we do not live in the world of the "ought," the fanciful utopia, but in the world of "is". The prince's role was not to promote virtue, but to insure security. He reasoned that the Judeo-Christian values would make a ruler week if he actually possessed them, but that they could be useful in dealing with the citizens if the prince seemed to have these qualities. Another example of Machiavelli's ideal characteristics of a prince
In The Prince, Machiavelli doesn’t hesitate to recommend that a ruler employ conventionally immoral methods against his own subjects to maintain authority over them, but he does imply that whatever a ruler does should ultimately benefit the community. A Prince’s actions may be cruel, manipulative, or otherwise immoral, but they put him in the position to govern. On occasion, Machiavelli even suggests that gaining power through immoral acts is the best way to improve a community because immorality is pragmatic in a way morality is not. A strong ruler established by immoral means can then do good for his state; Machiavelli indicates that simply having power is not enough. A ruler should also use it well. Admittedly, a ruler may only want to do good for his state in an effort to secure his own position at its head, but the effect he has is no less good for the lack of selfless reasoning behind it. Machiavelli implies that a strong ruler who necessarily acquires and keeps power through immoral actions has a generally good effect on his state, which is a naturally moral byproduct of otherwise immoral deeds.
In secular democracies, power is necessarily derived from the will of the governed. That power is then entrusted to a leader, who Machiavelli would understand to be a "prince". Inherently, his book, The Prince, has been close at hand for most politicians for centuries, as it provides general, historically proven advice for principalities and republics on how to govern and maintain relations with their most important resource and the very core of their power, which would be the people themselves.
Overall, I am generally satisfied with the process for developing the project. If I had another chance, I would have made the project electronical rather than a physical project, and with more time, I would have liked to have made the questions even more fun and engaging by having more real-world examples and possibly more interactive activities. In this way the primary text would be more about applying rhetoric rather than regurgitating information. By making the project into a physical game, I think we lost some advantages in terms of including image and video examples in our questions. I think an electronical version would have made the project more versatile and visually stimulating. There are advantages to having a physical game as opposed to a digital game, such as the participants feeling more involved because they are physically playing and experiencing rather than observing for the most part.
In The Morals of the Prince Machiavelli expresses his presumption on how a prince should act. He expresses that a prince should be feared, merciful, stingy, etc. He is right because if a prince is loved and too generous then people will take advantage of him and that will lead to his down fall. A prince must act appropriately to remain in power. Machiavelli gives his best ideas to keep a prince in power.
In my opinion I think marijuana should be legalized across the country because it does benefit a lot of people with autoimmune problems, anything that weakens the immune system, cancer, M.S., and more. Doctor’s believe that the prohibition of marijuana causes the public more harm than good. Those are some of the pros. Some of the cons of legalizing marijuana is it has an addictive nature, it can alter a user 's perception, is popularly known as a gateway drug, does damage to the brain, and more.
Machiavelli goes on in Chapters Fifteen through Twenty Three to discuss his advice to the reader in the ideal behavior and characteristics of a prince. He mentions that doing good would only lead to the ruin of a prince’s kingdom. He claims that a prince should be stingy and cruel as opposed to generous and merciful. He then, of course, adds in examples of successful rulers who were both moral and immoral alike. A prince should break promises more than he keeps them, according to the author. He also suggests that, while behaving in the aforementioned ways, a prince should do his best to avoid being despised by leaving his subjects’ land and women alone and by undertaking great projects to boost his reputation. As suggested at the beginning of Chapter Nineteen, a prince should not be “fickle, frivolous, effeminate, cowardly, [or] irresolute,” (70). ¬¬¬He should also choose wise, as opposed to flattering, advisors.
Speaking of such qualities as ruthless and mercy, Machiavelli argues that every ruler would like to be regarded as merciful and not cruel. Another thing is that often in order to retain power the ruler has to show cruelty. If the state is threatened with chaos or mess, the task of the prince is to prevent this even if it is necessary to arrange some reprisals. After all, with respect to the rest of the citizens, these executions will become a noble deed since riots and chaos would bring suffering to them (Machiavelli 24). Machiavelli provides an example of Cesare Borgia whose cruelty led to peace in the state. In that way, the